Singh And Kaur Title

[alias]

fateh ji

id like to say a few things and would like peoples opinion on what i say, thanks!

girls or guys regardless, from sikh origion, drink and eat meat and do the whole nashaa thing. this is oviously not allowed in sikhi and sikh relegion. so, why are they called sikhs?? most of them just about know our first guru and most of them dont even know the full mool manter let alone the maha manter! they carry the names singh and kaur for an otherwise specified reason to that of our father.

the name singh was only given to the khalsa. amritshak peoples. after the 5piyaare took amrit they then and only then got the name given to them. guru gobind singh ji was known as (guru) gobind rai.so people now-a-days are in effect desicrating our khalsa by giving themselves the title singh.would out amrit ke daate like that?

so people that are not part of the khalsa should not be called singh and kaur untill they have had amrit.

in thinkinbout this myself, i know that this may cause further division in our relegion, but where do u draw the line in following our guru, and "for the good of the relegion" thing??

the whole good of the relegion thing is what muslims do. they marry outside their relegion to bring new people to islam and have numerous kids and wives.(one man, 4 wives, 2 kids per wife, mohammed i guess knew what he was doing i suppose!!)but anyway, we all know that its not the lable of a sikh that is needed but the dharam and way of life of a sikh...

this then lead e to get fed up with so called sikhs and say to myself, 'a disk cleanup of our relegion is happening' i.e. sikhs that convert or move away from sikhi through choice, regards to whatever reason, is a good thing as they wont brong down the faith and this will re-establish the true meaning of sikhi. (no crapness happening will be labled on our relegion and then sikhi will be re established) and people that wish to follow sikh way of life, be the khalsa, and then take the name singh.

as a side note:

>>there is logic in this above paragraph, but i know it is a bit off, as we are loosing our members of our faith.(mostly due to lack of knoledge of the faith which is why we need to be educators of people that dont know to spread the wealth of the knowedge..) it is very sad that members of the sikh faith are being preyed on and are converting and are getting married to hindus and to a lesser extent muzlims, but it happens and theough their actions, the khalsa and the sikh members of the khalsa get labled and get put down...<<

some may say that from the instant of the first ever amrit sanchaar onward, all guys = singh, and all girls = kaur, regardless. as a personal thing, i dont agree with this, but i guess i kinda just accept it.

this is only a recent thought of mine! so may god forgiv me for my durmat.

forgive anything that may be found ofinsive..

hum rulte firte :homer

[rupinder singh]

At the end of the day, those who choose the true path of Guru Di Sikhi will always be few in number. Anyone else who hangs around and pointlessly label themselves "Sikh" just want to be part of a religious tick box.

Sikhi is not a birth right passed down in tribal clan surnames

[alias]

At the end of the day, those who choose the true path of Guru Di Sikhi will always be few in number. Anyone else who hangs around and pointlessly label themselves "Sikh" just want to be part of a religious tick box.

Sikhi is not a birth right passed down in tribal clan surnames

thank you tremendously for your reply.. in response to the "clan surnames" thing. the thing is, this is what singh and kaur has been reduced. its become inherrited now.

[jii]

i have also questioned this issue of surnames. nowerdays, there are also people to remove their caste eg bains and replace it with khalsa. i know this may sound a good idea, simply because of the word and mean of the word 'khalsa' but this also carries a caste like with it - why not remain simply a singh or kaur than to become a singh khalsa.

to me adding khalsa after singh or kaur, seems in a ways that people are turning this into a caste by showing they are a 'bit extra' sikh than the ordinary person who only has singh after their name.

[Singhballer]

Ahhh ^

Rethink that .

"to me adding khalsa after singh or kaur, seems in a ways that people are turning this into a caste by showing they are a 'bit extra' sikh than the ordinary person who only has singh after their name."

If that were the case we wouldnt be Sikh.

Exactly how do you come up with such things?

[Punjabi_Link]

LOL @ This thread.

Singh is originally a hindu warrior caste name. There are more hindus with last name of Singh than Sikhs. So are you telling me that Hindus can't have singh in their name either?

[jii]

Rethink that .

"to me adding khalsa after singh or kaur, seems in a ways that people are turning this into a caste by showing they are a 'bit extra' sikh than the ordinary person who only has singh after their name."

If that were the case we wouldnt be Sikh.

Exactly how do you come up with such things?

by this i mean that some people use khalsa after singh, many of whom i know will imply they are more worthy of being a sikh than others simply because of adding khalsa after singh.

what guru's have used the name khalsa after singh, was not the surnames singh and kaur provided by guru gobind singh to keep all status equal. what is the difference between having mr or dr before a name, it provides a different status, dr being more educated. so why dont people stick to what the guru's have given us, because in 30-40years time, 'khalsa' will become an upper class version of sikhs to those without adding the name khalsa after singh.

[Sarbloh]

LOL @ This thread.

Singh is originally a hindu warrior caste name. There are more hindus with last name of Singh than Sikhs. So are you telling me that Hindus can't have singh in their name either?

Well you hit the nail on the head. The title "Singh" given by Dasmesh Pita essentially needs to complemented by the Roop and the Reni and the Beni of the Khalsa. Otherwise one can mistake it for the Hindu Warrior Caste name.

So again we get back to what the original poster outlined that Singh and Kaur is a title that's being abused and taken for granted.

[alias]

LOL @ This thread.

Singh is originally a hindu warrior caste name. There are more hindus with last name of Singh than Sikhs. So are you telling me that Hindus can't have singh in their name either?

what this thread is, is discussing the name given to the khalsa by guru ji.whether hindus have it or not is not the discusion. they may just be wannabies, their ancestors mayhave been part of the khalsa in the time of guru ji and have been so caled re intergrated into the hindu socity.. or reintergrated through the father marrying into a hindu family. we dont know! could be anything under the sun! which is y we are not on about other relegions!! only mritdhari and non amritdhariz/ so called sikhs...

singh, regardless, is the name and identity given to the khalsa. so non amritdhari sikhs shouldnt have it.. this is the discussion.

id like for you to say where or hu your source is for the information that singh is a hindu cast name.. there is alot of wrong things in history...(not that i am saying you are wrong!)

[alias]

fateh ji,

in reading the current posts, i would like to question my origional statments ..

if we are to be all equal, then we should ALL have singh and kaur. this is a statment one may make.. but then y did guru ji create a distinct khalsa??

we should become guru wale. this doesnot mean that you become more importent.. it doesnt creat a status/hierachy.

amritshak ppl are not better/more importent..

they might live a better life, but this doesnt create disequality (im making up words agen!).

so, regardless of what our names are and stuff, (as if we were to get into names and things, it creates caste/ 'higher than thow' cenerio) we are all equal.

but a distinction was given to the khalsa and it should be kept like that..

pul chuk kima